--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This entire thread has pointed up for me the 
> > > damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't nature 
> > > of spiritual teaching.
> > 
> > Exactly.  And the whole problem is that some in this thread
> > are suggesting that there is a "right" way to be a spiritual
> > teacher.  IMO that's a lot like every other theory that proposes
> > a "one size fits all" approach...it's unrealiistic and ineffective.
> > 
> > Teachers are different.  They have different approaches, 
> > based on their individual paths, their individual predilections,
> > and their individual personalities.  Students are different.
> > They, too have individual predilections and personalities.
> > Some students feel more comfortable with a teacher who
> > teaches a certain way; others feel more comfortable with a
> > teacher who teaches a completely opposite way.  
> > 
> > Where is the problem in this?
> 
> The problem occurs when the teacher evokes a response
> from the student that is clearly not what he or she
> intended 

Sez who?

There are traditions in which the teacher *deliberately* sets
out to push the students' buttons.  The more they are pushed,
the better he has done his job.

The fact that the student doesn't *like* having his buttons 
pushed doesn't enter into the equation at all if the student
has made a commitment with the teacher that constitutes
a request to "Enlighten me."  If such a bargain has been 
struck, then it is the teacher's duty to do whatever will most
quickly enable the student to realize his own enlightenment.
If that "whatever" occasionally makes the student uncom-
fortable, so be it.  If the student gets *so* uncomfortable that
he runs away, so be it.  The teacher has still done his job.

> ...and which demonstrates that what the teacher
> had said was distinctly counterproductive--and the
> teacher not only doesn't back off and try another
> approach, but continues to ram the first approach down
> the student's throat, even blaming the student for
> having had that negative reaction in the first place.

You are *again* trying to judge the effectiveness of a 
teaching that is supposed to eliminate ignorance *from
the point of view of ignorance*.  Who CARES what the
student thinks about his buttons being pushed if the 
button-pushing eventually creates a situation in the
student's mind/body construct that allows it to drop its
stories and realize its essential nature as enlightenment?

You are essentially saying that the teacher should tailor
his teaching to the limitations of the student.  That seems
to me a rather effective method for perpetuating ignorance.

Think of it in terms of a drug-addiction analogy.  The 
teacher is trying to get the student to realize that he is
addicted to a dangerous drug (ignorance, the ego, self,
his "stories").  The student doesn't LIKE being told this.
So you're saying that the teacher should back off and
tell the student that he ISN'T addicted to drugs, or that
his drug dependency wasn't his own fautt?  :-)

> "Skillful means," again.  It isn't a matter of using
> a one-size-fits-all approach, to the contrary.  It's
> a matter of being able to find the approach that will
> most benefit the student.  That's the kind of "empathy"
> I'm talking about.

And how's that worked out for you?  (apologies to Dr. Phil)

You've stated that you're *comfortable* with Maharishi's
non-threatening, non-challenging "sweet truth" approach.
Have you realized your own enlightenment?  Might it be
possible that a more direct approach might have helped
you realize it more quickly?







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to